Information & Ethics Committee on Nov. 8th, 2017

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

A Green amendment has passed. Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Zimmer]

Yes, thank you.

As PV-15 carries, NDP-33 cannot be moved.

Now we go to amendment LIB-9.

Mr. Erskine-Smith, or whoever your designate is.

[Nathaniel Erskine-Smith, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

Mr. Dubourg.

[Emmanuel Dubourg, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

This amendment corrects a drafting error in the bill. So that's why we want to change it, if it's in fact a fourth quarter. That's what I propose.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Zimmer]

Thank you, Mr. Dubourg.

Mr. Cullen.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

To be clear, are we on amendment LIB-9.1, or are we on amendment LIB-9?

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Zimmer]

We are on LIB-9.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Okay, I have a similar request to last time. I'm just curious. I can read the amendment, but I'd just like to know the rationale for it and on which testimony it is based, if any.

[Emmanuel Dubourg, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

It's not necessarily based on testimony, as you say. It is rather the way the clause was written. In the bill, it says: “Within 30 days after the end of the quarter in which a contract... is amended...”. We want make it clearer by adding “or within 60 days after the end of that quarter if that quarter is the fourth quarter”. You see the nuance. Right now, it only says: “Within 30 days.” By adding the fourth quarter, we are extending the deadline.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Are we talking to amendment LIB-9 or LIB-9.1? I'm a bit confused.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Zimmer]

With respect, Mr. Dubourg, we're still on amendment LIB-9. I think you were speaking to amendment LIB-9.1.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

It deals with quatrième trimestre and all those things.

[Emmanuel Dubourg, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Yes, exactly.

Thank you. It's a drafting error.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Zimmer]

That's fine, thank you, Mr. Dubourg.

If there's no further debate, we'll vote on amendment LIB-9.

(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

Who would like to speak to amendment LIB-9.1?

Mr. Picard.

[Michel Picard, Liberal, Montarville, QC]

Can I have a 45 seconds just to clarify something?

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Zimmer]

Yes, you can do that.

Mr. Picard.

[Michel Picard, Liberal, Montarville, QC]

The purpose of this amendment is to correct an error in the alignment of proposed subsections 86(1), 86(2) and 86(3). They should be aligned, to be part of the same section.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Zimmer]

Thank you, Mr. Picard.

Are there any comments or debate on amendment LIB-9.1?

(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

We have amendment PV-16, as well as a note saying it is identical to amendment LIB-10 and amendment LIB-10 cannot be moved after a vote on PV-16.

Ms. May.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

This is again based on recommendations from the Information Commissioner, and I just want to read from her text. This one sentence distills very clearly why this amendment is being made. This is a quote:

Proactive disclosure requirements, where the government chooses what is disclosed, are not the same as subjecting these entities to the right of access, where requesters can choose what is requested and are entitled to independent oversight of government's decisions on the disclosure of information.

What I am proposing to delete here, I gather, is identical to another motion to delete. The purpose of this deletion is to remove what's found at section 91, which removes from the Information Commissioner any jurisdiction over those identified pieces of information, such as spending limits, grants and contributions, briefing materials, and so on. The government under Bill C-58 is proposing that it will automatically disclose such information, but without allowing the Information Commissioner to check on what it's doing.

This provision and my deletion would allow the Information Commissioner to have oversight over the proactive disclosure requirements that the government is bringing forward.

I see no harm in it. I certainly hope I'm on a roll here. Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Zimmer]

Mr. Cullen.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Dare to dream. I think it's good. I hope you are on a roll too, simply because if the government—the ministers who appeared—saw the importance of the proactive disclosure piece and of their efforts, simply allowing the Information Commissioner access to those similar files shouldn't be a problem, because they're all meant to be public anyway.

The Information Commissioner asked for this. It is certainly reasonable to grant it to her and to future commissioners.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Zimmer]

Is there any further debate on PV-16?

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

We'll move to LIB-10.1.

Who's the spokesperson?

[Mona Fortier, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

I am, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Zimmer]

Ms. Fortier.

[Mona Fortier, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

We are proposing this amendment given the concerns expressed about this part of the bill. It is one of the amendments that we are introducing today. I would like us to adopt this amendment.